Polygenism and Jimmy Akin

[Rogerteder]

Notice Jimmy says that Pius XII (and other local catechism–that the Vatican didnt demand be changed) said it isnt apparent how one can hold polygenism. Jimmy further says that it might be possible for another Pope to issue a statement saying polygenism is compatible with the Catholic faith. Jimmy says THAT HASNT HAPPENED YET!!! SO ARENT WE CATHOLICS OBLIGED TO BELIEVE WHAT PIUS XII TAUGHT ???
here’s JIMMY:
"When Pius XII dealt with the subject of evolution in his 1950 encyclical Humani generis, he didn’t treat the question of polygenism (the idea that there were more than two individuals at the dawn of humanity) in the same way he treated other aspects of the question. He hedged his bets a bit on this subject.

While he said that Catholics did not have the liberty to advocate polygenism, he didn’t say that the reason for this was that polygenism was totally and irreformably unable to be reconciled with the sources of Catholic dogma. Instead, he said it was because “it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin” (HG 37).

This leaves open the possibility that a way of reconciling polygenism with the sources of dogma might eventually be found. Since his time many Catholic theologians have conjectured that there are ways in which polygenism can be reconciled with original sin (e.g., saying that Adam and Eve represent the early human community which as a whole turned away from God at the beginning of our history and thus committed original sin, passing it on to us).

A number of years ago the German conference of bishops published A Catholic Adult Catechism that was published in English back in 1987 by Ignatius Press. This catechism contained a section on evolution that said it was possible to reconcile polygenism with the Church’s teaching if certain points regarding original sin were maintained. I am also given to understand that this Catechism was also reviewed by the Vatican (after the debacle of the Dutch Catchism), which did not mandate a change in this section.

It is further to be observed that, in John Paul II’s statements on evolution (such as the famous speech to the pontifical academy of the sciences) he is quick to reaffirm all of the things Pius XII said about the limits on how evolution is compatible with the Catholic faith except on the subject of polygenism, where John Paul II said nothing at all.

JP2 was not saying that it’s okay for Catholics to go ahead and advocate polygenism, but he was conspicuously silent in reaffirming his predecessor’s stand on this issue and may have been holding the door open for one of his own successors to revisit this issue and take a different position.

It is possible that, one day, a pope may issue a new statement on evolution and say that a way has been found to reconcile polygenism with the sources of faith.

But that hasn’t happened.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church continues to speak of Adam and Eve in monogenistic terms, and there has been no Vatican declaration on any level (so far as I know) that polygenism is compatible, but there is a greater degree of reserve shown by the pope on this subject in recent years, and the Vatican has let pass local magisterial statements–like that of the German conference of bishops’ catechism–that displayed openness to polygenism.

If you’re teaching a bunch of school kids, I wouldn’t go into all this with them. It could well interfere with what their parents want them to be taught, and parents have the ultimate say in such matters. But for your own benefit you may want the additional background as a way of gauging the degree of firmness that the Holy See is presently placing on this topic."

 

[reggieM]

Notice Jimmy says that Pius XII (and other local catechism–that the Vatican didnt demand be changed) said it isnt apparent how one can hold polygenism. Jimmy further says that it might be possible for another Pope to issue a statement saying polygenism is compatible with the Catholic faith. Jimmy says THAT HASNT HAPPENED YET!!! SO ARENT WE CATHOLICS OBLIGED TO BELIEVE WHAT PIUS XII TAUGHT ???

I will guess that the people you are writing this for and who most need to hear it do not respect Jimmy Akin and will claim that he is wrong, etc. They won’t deal with the fact that the Church has not abrogated the prior teaching.

 

[Orogeny]

I will guess that the people you are writing this for and who most need to hear it do not respect Jimmy Akin and will claim that he is wrong, etc. They won’t deal with the fact that the Church has not abrogated the prior teaching.

Roger and Reggie, is Pope Benedict XVI a heretic? Was he teaching heresy when he approved of the following statement: “While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.” bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm

If the official teaching of the Church does not allow for polygenism, how do either of you explain that statement?

Peace

Tim

 

[Rogerteder]

Roger and Reggie, is Pope Benedict XVI a heretic? Was he teaching heresy when he approved of the following statement: “While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.” bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm

If the official teaching of the Church does not allow for polygenism, how do either of you explain that statement?

Peace

Tim

Remember Pope Benedict is a Catholic just like you and me. When he writes a book, gives a speech, has coffee with his cousin’s best freind’s Uncle, etc he is just giving his opinion like you and me. Unless he publishes an Apostolic letter, a Papal Bull, Encyclical, etc, and overturns Pius XII’s teaching then it means nothing. The Pope has also made other statements(not in an official way–just like the one you site ) that seem to encourage against evolution. You can find these statements on Sungenis’s web site, and at the Kolbe center’s web site.

 

[reggieM]

Remember Pope Benedict is a Catholic just like you and me. When he writes a book, gives a speech, has coffee with his cousin’s best freind’s Uncle, etc he is just giving his opinion like you and me. Unless he publishes an Apostolic letter, a Papal Bull, Encyclical, etc, and overturns Pius XII’s teaching then it means nothing. The Pope has also made other statements(not in an official way–just like the one you site ) that seem to encourage against evolution. You can find these statements on Sungenis’s web site, and at the Kolbe center’s web site.

That is correct. Pope Benedict is not a heretic.

"While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision,

Since it is “subject to revision”, then it is not complete, certain or demanding of unquestioning acceptance.

physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species

He says that it is a “convincing case”. So, he might be personally convinced by it (although other statements he has made contradict this).

As Mr. Akin said, if the Holy See decides to abrogate the teaching of Pius XII on polygenism (with a document of higher authority and binding power), then we have to accept it. But for whatever reason, Pope Benedict and the Magisterium of the Church has not overturned the teaching of Humani Generis. Catholics must assent to that Magisterial teaching and thus are required to reject polygenism. This has huge implications to the Catholic-promoters of Darwinian theory.

 

[Rogerteder]

That is correct. Pope Benedict is not a heretic.

Since it is “subject to revision”, then it is not complete, certain or demanding of unquestioning acceptance.

He says that it is a “convincing case”. So, he might be personally convinced by it (although other statements he has made contradict this).

As Mr. Akin said, if the Holy See decides to abrogate the teaching of Pius XII on polygenism (with a document of higher authority and binding power), then we have to accept it. But for whatever reason, Pope Benedict and the Magisterium of the Church has not overturned the teaching of Humani Generis. Catholics must assent to that Magisterial teaching and thus are required to reject polygenism. This has huge implications to the Catholic-promoters of Darwinian theory.

Well said Reggie, my point exactly. My opinion is that no Pope will overturn Pius XII’s teaching because it has been the constant teaching of the Church that Adam and Eve were real historical people and the fall was a historical event. It also seems to be the clear teaching of scripture and Popes, and almost all the Fathers. I don’t know of any OFFICIAL texts that teach that Genesis is to be taken figuratively or symbolically.

 

[Orogeny]

Remember Pope Benedict is a Catholic just like you and me. When he writes a book, gives a speech, has coffee with his cousin’s best freind’s Uncle, etc he is just giving his opinion like you and me. Unless he publishes an Apostolic letter, a Papal Bull, Encyclical, etc, and overturns Pius XII’s teaching then it means nothing. The Pope has also made other statements(not in an official way–just like the one you site ) that seem to encourage against evolution. You can find these statements on Sungenis’s web site, and at the Kolbe center’s web site.

I quoted from an official Vatican document. He approved that document and you claim that to do so is against established Church teaching. That would (or should) mean that what is taught in this document is heretical. He approved it in his official capacity. It is not his opinion.

So I ask you again. Since he approved of a document that is clearly in opposition to official Church teaching as part of his official position, is he or was he at the time he approved the document, a heretic?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

That is correct. Pope Benedict is not a heretic.

I agree.

Since it is “subject to revision”, then it is not complete, certain or demanding of unquestioning acceptance.

What scientific theory meets those standards reggie? Can you name one?

He says that it is a “convincing case”. So, he might be personally convinced by it (although other statements he has made contradict this).

Well, personal opinions aside, that is an official Vatican document that he approved of in his official capacity. Therefore, it is clearly much more than his personal opinion.

But even if it were just his personal opinion, can he make his opinions that contradict what you claim to be clear Church teacing public considering the weight his opinions carry and not be considered heretical?

As Mr. Akin said, if the Holy See decides to abrogate the teaching of Pius XII on polygenism (with a document of higher authority and binding power), then we have to accept it. But for whatever reason, Pope Benedict and the Magisterium of the Church has not overturned the teaching of Humani Generis. Catholics must assent to that Magisterial teaching and thus are required to reject polygenism. This has huge implications to the Catholic-promoters of Darwinian theory.

He clearly has opposed it in his writing. I don’t know why he hasn’t changed it or if he will change it. But it comes back to what you claim we must accept as Catholics. In his official teaching capacity, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger allowed for polygenism. Is he a heretic for doing so?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Well said Reggie, my point exactly. My opinion is that no Pope will overturn Pius XII’s teaching because it has been the constant teaching of the Church that Adam and Eve were real historical people and the fall was a historical event. It also seems to be the clear teaching of scripture and Popes, and almost all the Fathers. I don’t know of any OFFICIAL texts that teach that Genesis is to be taken figuratively or symbolically.

Except for the document I referred you to.

Peace

Tim

 

[Nita]

Roger and Reggie, is Pope Benedict XVI a heretic? Was he teaching heresy when he approved of the following statement: “While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.” bringyou.to/apologetics/p80.htm

If the official teaching of the Church does not allow for polygenism, how do either of you explain that statement?

Peace

Tim

“Humanoids” are not human beings. They’re “pre-human”, so to speak. If you read the whole paper, any acceptable evolution is resticted to the body only. The paper upholds the immediate “creation from nothing” of every individual human soul by God. And of course, it is the human soul that is the principle of any physical life experienced by the individual body. It (the human soul) is what makes us human and not animal. I don’t recall anything in the document that says God created human souls for a whole society of these humanoids at some point – like polygenism. But I’ll read it again just to check.

Here are a few more quotes from the paper you’re referring to (
64. … Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. …

1. …and it is, in the end, inappropriate to speak of the Creator as a force, or energy, or ground. Creation ex nihilo is the action of a transcendent personal agent, acting freely and intentionally, with a view toward the all-encompassing purposes of personal engagement. In Catholic tradition, the doctrine of the origin of human beings articulates the revealed truth of this fundamentally relational or personalist understanding of God and of human nature. The exclusion of pantheism and emanationism in the doctrine of creation can be interpreted at root as a way of protecting this revealed truth. The doctrine of the immediate or special creation of each human soul not only addresses the ontological discontinuity between matter and spirit, but also establishes the basis for a divine intimacy which embraces every single human person from the first moment of his or her existence…
2. …The **doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is thus a singular affirmation of the truly personal character of creation **and its order toward a personal creature who is fashioned as the imago Dei and who responds not to a ground, force or energy, but to a personal creator. The doctrines of the imago Dei and the creatio ex nihilo teach us that the existing universe is the setting for a radically personal drama, in which the triune Creator calls out of nothingness those to whom He then calls out in love…

 

[reggieM]

I quoted from an official Vatican document. He approved that document and you claim that to do so is against established Church teaching. That would (or should) mean that what is taught in this document is heretical. He approved it in his official capacity. It is not his opinion.

The document does not positively teach that polygenism is true or that the Pope accepts it. It said that the case is “convincing” – certainly, it’s “convincing” to heretics. It does not say that the Pope accepts it or that Catholics are free to accept it either.

 

[reggieM]

I agree.What scientific theory meets those standards reggie?

Darwinism certainly doesn’t.

Well, personal opinions aside, that is an official Vatican document that he approved of in his official capacity.

It nowhere states that polygenism can be accepted by Catholics.

He clearly has opposed it in his writing.

No, he did not oppose it. On the contrary, he spoke of his teaching being “in continuity” with Pius XII’s in the very document you are referring to.

Additionally, since the teaching from Pius XII’s encyclical may be reformable since it deals with the false notions of evolution which are gradually being disproved over time, then Benedict XVI’s views would not be heretical anyway.

In his official teaching capacity, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger allowed for polygenism.

Where did he say that Catholics can accept polygenism? He said it was “convincing” but not that it is permitted to accept it. Pope Benedict references Pope John Paul II’s “Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”:

Pius XII added two methodological conditions for this study: one could not adopt this opinion as if it were a certain and demonstrable doctrine, and one could not totally set aside the teaching Revelation on the relevant questions.

Is he a heretic for doing so?

Nice try, but I’m afraid you’re wrong.

But the following question is more apt: Are you a heretic? Do you adopt “this opinion as if it were a certain and demonatrable doctrine”?

If not, then you have to admit that evolution is “not certain”.

I’ve seen you argue otherwise, but I’ll be very glad to observe your statement that “evolutionary theory is not certain”.

This leads to many problems, of course. Where are the weaknesses and flaws in evolutionary theory that make it “not a certain and demonstrable doctrine”.

 

[Nita]

This paragraph did contain a phrase that apparently acknowledges the possibility of a group “ontological leap”.
But it certainly doesn’t say that is what happened!

1. …Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention. Acting indirectly through causal chains operating from the beginning of cosmic history, God prepared the way for what Pope John Paul II has called “an ontological leap…the moment of transition to the spiritual.” While science can study these causal chains,** it falls to theology to locate this account of the special creation of the human soul **within the overarching plan of the triune God to share the communion of trinitarian life with human persons who are created out of nothing in the image and likeness of God, and who, in his name and according to his plan, exercise a creative stewardship and sovereignty over the physical universe.

 

[reggieM]

“Humanoids” are not human beings. They’re “pre-human”, so to speak.]

Good point.

If you read the whole paper, any acceptable evolution is resticted to the body only.

Evolution cannot talk about “human beings” because it cannot account for the soul or supernatural aspects of humanity. Natural science can only speak about the superficial, material aspects and thus cannot talk about the origins of human beings (the “ontological leap” that the papal document mentions).

The paper upholds the immediate “creation from nothing” of every individual human soul by God.

As against materialist-philosophy (Darwinism).

And of course, it is the human soul that is the principle of any physical life experienced by the individual body. It (the human soul) is what makes us human and not animal.

Yes, that is a very good point also.

I don’t recall anything in the document that says God created human souls for a whole society of these humanoids at some point – like polygenism. But I’ll read it again just to check.

No papal or magisterial document says such a thing.

Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. …

The origin of humans cannot be explained in purely scientific terms – this is a refutation of many of the false evolutionary theories that are spread today.

The doctrines of the imago Dei and the creatio ex nihilo teach us that the existing universe is the setting for a radically personal drama, in which the triune Creator calls out of nothingness those to whom He then calls out in love…

I haven’t seen any scientific documents that explain “the creatio ex nihilo” either.

 

[Orogeny]

The document does not positively teach that polygenism is true or that the Pope accepts it. It said that the case is “convincing” – certainly, it’s “convincing” to heretics. It does not say that the Pope accepts it or that Catholics are free to accept it either.

Nor does it dispute it. If it is absolute Church teaching that polygenism is a heresy, then he had an obligation to discount it. And he didn’t. Is he a heretic?

Peace

Tim

 

[reggieM]

Nor does it dispute it. If it is absolute Church teaching that polygenism is a heresy, then he had an obligation to discount it. And he didn’t. Is he a heretic?

He does not have an obligation to repeat the condemnation that Pope Pius XII already gave. The document by Pope Benedict refers to Pius XII’s document – and all of the condemnations in that document are preserved by Pope Benedict’s reference to it.

So, no – he does not have an obligation to refute polygenism again.

I will say that I do support your rigorous view of Catholic doctrine though, for the most part.

Although you seem quite adamant on this topic. Do you embrace polygenism? If not, how do you reconcile it with your Darwinian views?

 

[Orogeny]

Darwinism certainly doesn’t.

I didn’t ask which scientific theories didn’t meet those standards. So I’ll ask again since you must have been confused. Which scientific theories are complete, certain or demanding of unquestioning acceptance?

It nowhere states that polygenism can be accepted by Catholics.

Did it dispute polygenism? It certainly didn’t in my copy.

No, he did not oppose it. On the contrary, he spoke of his teaching being “in continuity” with Pius XII’s in the very document you are referring to.

Ah, so I just made up the quote I posted? Cardinal Ratzinger allowed it to be published even though he knew that it is contrary to Church teaching? Isn’t that heretical?

Additionally, since the teaching from Pius XII’s encyclical may be reformable since it deals with the false notions of evolution which are gradually being disproved over time, then Benedict XVI’s views would not be heretical anyway.

That makes no sense what so ever. This document never mentions your fantasy, er, position that evolution is being disproved. It clearly says that at least some theories of evolution are not in conflict with Church teaching (see Nita’s post). How can that be if evolution is false?

Where did he say that Catholics can accept polygenism? He said it was “convincing” but not that it is permitted to accept it.

Wow. So Cardinal Ratzinger is willing to insist that Catholics must ignore reality? Sorry, Reggie. I know that fits into your fantasy, but it clearly doesn’t fit what he wrote.

Pope Benedict references Pope John Paul II’s “Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”ius XII added two methodological conditions for this study: one could not adopt this opinion as if it were a certain and demonstrable doctrine, and one could not totally set aside the teaching Revelation on the relevant questions.Nice try, but I’m afraid you’re wrong.

And since he accepts polygenism, it clearly isn’t opposed to doctrine. At least you read that part right.

But the following question is more apt: Are you a heretic? Do you adopt “this opinion as if it were a certain and demonatrable doctrine”?

I agree with Pope Benedict. How about you?

If not, then you have to admit that evolution is “not certain”.

Evolution is certain - it has been observed. The theories of how it occurs are open to new discoveries and therefore, as you would say, not certain.

I’ve seen you argue otherwise, but I’ll be very glad to observe your statement that “evolutionary theory is not certain”.

Happy now? I have been consistent with my arguments although it may be possible for you to find something to dispute. After all, you have always been more about gotcha moments rather than actual science.

This leads to many problems, of course. Where are the weaknesses and flaws in evolutionary theory that make it “not a certain and demonstrable doctrine”.

There are always things to discover. Have you met a biologist yet who claims that everything has been discovered and understood. If so, please provide a reference. I could use a good laugh.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

“Humanoids” are not human beings. They’re “pre-human”, so to speak. If you read the whole paper, any acceptable evolution is resticted to the body only.

Exactly! We humans evolved physically. Our souls are instantaneous creations.

1. … Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. …

And that section clearly indicates that only those theories that explicitly deny divine providence are false. Other theories are possible. And they are only possible because evolution actually happens.

The exclusion of pantheism and emanationism in the doctrine of creation can be interpreted at root as a way of protecting this revealed truth. **The doctrine of the immediate or special creation of each human soul **not only addresses the ontological discontinuity between matter and spirit, but also establishes the basis for a divine intimacy which embraces every single human person from the first moment of his or her existence…
66. …The **doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is thus a singular affirmation of the truly personal character of creation **and its order toward a personal creature who is fashioned as the imago Dei and who responds not to a ground, force or energy, but to a personal creator. The doctrines of the imago Dei and the creatio ex nihilo teach us that the existing universe is the setting for a radically personal drama, in which the triune Creator calls out of nothingness those to whom He then calls out in love…

I love this document! I find nothing in it that I don’t agree with. It is very well written.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

This paragraph did contain a phrase that apparently acknowledges the possibility of a group “ontological leap”.
But it certainly doesn’t say that is what happened!

But see, here is the point. If it is a definitive Church teaching, he must either say that polygenism is wrong regardless of the evidence or else he is allowing a heresy. And he allowed it to be published. So either polygenism is allowed OR Pope Benedict is a heretic.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

He does not have an obligation to repeat the condemnation that Pope Pius XII already gave. The document by Pope Benedict refers to Pius XII’s document – and all of the condemnations in that document are preserved by Pope Benedict’s reference to it.

He would have an obligation to stop the publication that obviously allows a teaching that is contrary to Church teaching. And he didn’t.

So, no – he does not have an obligation to refute polygenism again.

I will say that I do support your rigorous view of Catholic doctrine though, for the most part.

So why did he allow that to be published?

Although you seem quite adamant on this topic. Do you embrace polygenism? If not, how do you reconcile it with your Darwinian views?

I think, as the Pope does, that we physically evolved and were ensouled at some point in time. I don’t know how or when, but that is how we became human.

Peace

Tim